Setty Uma Maheswara Rao vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 2088 AP

Citation : 2023 Latest Caselaw 2088 AP
Judgement Date : 19 April, 2023

Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

Setty Uma Maheswara Rao vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 19 April, 2023

       THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE B.S.BHANUMATHI

             Criminal Petition No.2602 of 2023
ORDER :

This Criminal Petition is filed seeking bail under Section

437 and 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ('CrPC') to

the petitioners/A.1 to A.3 in Crime No.523 of 2022 of

Muvvalavanipalem Police Station, registered on 24-12-2022 for

the offence punishable under Section 20(b) (i) 20 (b) (ii) (C)

NDPS Act.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.K.Ananda

Rao, learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor representing

the respondent/State.

3. The case of prosecution briefly is that on 24-12-2022

while the Inspector of police along with staff proceeded to the

scene of offence, on information about illegal possession and

transportation of Ganja and along with them took mediators

and weighing machine, they found individuals loitering near at

the place along with a car bearing No.AP 39 NK 0396 and that

on seeing the police, they tried to escape and thereby A.1 to A7

could be nabbed along with 124 kgs of dry ganja in the car.

Then the police seized contraband, cash of Rs.10,140/- and 11

cell phones and they arrested A.1 to A7. They recorded the

statements of mediators.

Crl.P.No.2602 of 2023

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the

petitioners are innocent, they were not found in conscious

possession of the contraband. He further submitted that the

rigor of Section 37 of NDPS Act shall not be seriously enforced

or else the rights of the innocent person would be hampered.

He placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in

Mohammad Muslim alias Hussain v. State (NCT of Delhi)1

wherein at paras 19 and 20 held as follows:-

"19. A plain and literal interpretation of the conditions under Section 37 (i.e., that Court should be satisfied that the accused is not guilty and would not commit any offence) would effectively exclude grant of bail altogether, resulting in punitive detention and unsanctioned preventive detention as well. Therefore, the only manner in which such special conditions as enacted under Section 37 can be considered within constitutional parameters is where the court is reasonably satisfied on a prima facie look at the material on record (whenever the bail application is made) that the accused is not guilty. Any other interpretation, would result in complete denial of the bail to a person accused of offences such as those enacted under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.

20. The standard to be considered therefore, is one, where the court would look at the material in a broad manner, and reasonably see whether the accused's guilt may be proved. The judgments of this court have, therefore, emphasized that the satisfaction

Criminal Appeal No.943 of 2023 dated 28.03.2023

Crl.P.No.2602 of 2023

which courts are expected to record, i.e., that the accused may not be guilty, is only prima facie, based on a reasonable reading, which does not call for meticulous examination of the materials collected during investigation (as held in Union of India v. Rattan Malik19). Grant of bail on ground of undue delay in trial, cannot be said to be fettered by Section 37 of the Act, given the imperative of Section 436A which is applicable to offences under the NDPS Act too (ref. Satender Kumar Antil supra). Having 19 (2009) 2 SCC 624 14 regard to these factors the court is of the opinion that in the facts of this case, the appellant deserves to be enlarged on bail."

5. Learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor submitted

that the investigation is still in progress and it is 117 days by

today and the call data of the accused involved is yet to be

secured. He further submitted that in view of huge quantity of

Ganja far exceeding the commercial quantity and also because

A.1 to A.3 are involved in two more crimes of the same nature,

they are not entitled to bail. The details of the case are as

follows :